"We're Taking Down Seven
Countries in Five Years":
A Regime Change Checklist

by Gary Leupp

www.dissidentvoice.org, January
17, 2007

Last October in a speech at the University
of Alabama Gen. Wesley Clark again recounted his conversation
with a general at the Pentagon in November 2001.

I said, "Are we still going to invade Iraq?" "Yes,
Sir," he said, "but it's worse than that." I said,
"How do you mean?" He held up this piece of paper. He
said, "I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office
of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. It's a, it's a five-year
plan. We're going to take down seven countries in five years.
We're going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, we're going to come back and get Iran in five
years. I said, "Is that classified, that paper?" He
said, "Yes Sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to
me, because I want to be able to talk about it."

This was of course just two months after 9-11, when Americans'
attention was focused on al-Qaeda and preparations for an invasion
of Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden lived as a guest of the Taliban.

Five years and two months have passed. The plan to "take
down" all those countries is behind schedule, and has even
been modified somewhat. Libya has left the target list due to
Muammar Qaddafi's agreement to dismantle his WMD programs in 2003.
(Bush has tried to take credit for that, although patient British
diplomacy deserves more credit. During Anglo-American negotiations
with Libya the British were so disgusted with John Bolton's behavior
they asked that Bush's envoy be removed from the talks.) But the
U.S. did indeed take down Iraq, and all the other countries listed
remain in the crosshairs.

Syria, despite its cooperation with the U.S. against al-Qaeda,
has been systematically vilified by a U.S. administration that
now refuses to even talk to its government. Soon after Bush's
infamous "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, John
Bolton added a second tier of Syria, Libya and Cuba to the "evil"
list. The anti-Syrian propaganda campaign has been relentless
ever since. When no WMD were found in Iraq, some (following an
assertion by Ariel Sharon as early as December 2002) suggested
that they'd been removed to Syria. Immediately after the assassination
of Rafik Hariri in February 2005, Washington -- with no evidence
whatsoever -- pointed the finger at Syria. It demanded the withdrawal
of Syrian troops in Lebanon, depicting them as an unwelcome oppressive
force although they had been deployed there at the request of
the Christian-led Lebanese government to help end a civil war.

When the Syrian forces expeditiously withdrew, the U.S. expressed
its continued dissatisfaction, accusing Syria of continuing to
maintain an intelligence network in the country (as though the
U.S. doesn't). The U.S. has consistently accused Syria of harboring
former Iraqi Baathist officials (as though there would be anything
wrong with providing refuge to officials fleeing an illegally
invaded country) and of allowing Arab fighters to cross its border
into Iraq. The Syrians reply that they've strained their resources
to better police their border, but that the Americans, who cannot
adequately guard their own border with Mexico, are asking the
impossible.

For many years Washington has designated Syria a terror-sponsoring
nation because of its support for Palestinian resistance groups
and Hizbollah, Lebanon's most popular political party. Although
Syria has repeatedly offered to negotiate a peace agreement with
Israel, it has been targeted by the neocons for regime change.
A key step towards that end was obtained by the Syria Accountability
and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, passed overwhelmingly
by Congress and signed into law by the president. This makes it
official U.S. policy that "Syria should bear responsibility
for attacks committed by Hizbollah and other terrorist groups
with offices or other facilities in Syria, or bases in areas of
Lebanon occupied by Syria" and gives the president broad
discretion to take punitive actions.

In late 2005 Richard Perle -- one of the most important neocon
architects of Washington's regime change policy -- hosted Farid
Ghadry, the head of something called the "Syrian Reform Party,"
in his suburban Washington home. Last June Ghadry met the neocons'
chief sponsor, Vice President Dick Cheney, to strategize about
regime change in Syria. This gentleman has told the Wall Street
Journal that Perle's buddy Ahmad Chalabi "paved the way in
Iraq for what we want to do in Syria." Robert Dreyfuss writing
in the American Prospect calls Ghadry "a pro-Israeli Syrian
who's maintained ties to neoconservatives in Washington and who
is close to [David] Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav Wurmser, the
director of Middle East affairs for the Hudson Institute."

In his most recent speech to the nation, President Bush virtually
announced his intention to "take down" Syria: "Succeeding
in Iraq," he declared, "also requires defending its
territorial integrity . . . and stabilizing the region in the
face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran
and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents
to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing
material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt
the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support
from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks
providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Asked last week by Delaware Senator Joseph Biden whether she thinks
Bush has constitutional authority to cross the border into Syria
or Iran, Secretary of State Condi Rice replied that the president's
powers are "broad" and that he "will do what is
necessary to protect our forces." Yes, notwithstanding the
administration's setbacks, the plan to attack Syria remains on
track.

What of Lebanon, next on the general's list? Since 2001 the U.S.
has succeeded in working with France to produce UN Security Council
resolutions forcing Syria's withdrawal and demanding that Hizbollah
disarm. It has pressured the European Union placing Hizbollah
on its list of "terrorist" organizations. It has orchestrated
the "Cedar Revolution" (so dubbed by U.S. Under Secretary
for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula J. Dobriansky), prompting
the resignation of pro-Syrian Prime Minister Omar Karami and producing
an anti-Syrian majority in the Lebanese Parliament in June 2005.
The U.S. media has spun these political changes as reflecting
popular sentiment in Lebanon, ignoring the massive Hizbollah-led
pro-Syrian demonstrations which have generally dwarfed those hostile
to Damascus.

During Israel's vicious assault on Lebanon last July, condemned
by virtually every government but Washington as a wild overreaction
to the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hizbollah forces on the
border, the U.S. stood by Israel. Over 1000 Lebanese civilians
died in the July War, a quarter of the country's population was
displaced, much of the rebuilt infrastructure was destroyed, and
massive environmental damage (including a four million gallon
oil slick off the Lebanese coast after the Israeli Air Force bombed
the Jiyeh Power Station) resulted. Throughout the U.S. media,
taking its cue from the administration, depicted Israel's actions
as self-defense.

Yes, Washington wants to "take down" Hizbollah, but
the movement's popularity soared as it mounted an impressive counter-attack
last summer, not only consolidating its Shiite base but winning
the support of many Sunnis, Christians and other Lebanese. If
the plan was to destroy Hizbollah preparatory to an attack on
its ally Iran, it failed miserably. Hizbollah continues to rally
hundreds of thousands in opposition to the U.S.-backed government
of Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora. So the neocons can't yet proclaim
"Mission Accomplished" in Lebanon.

What of Somalia? For the first time since the "Black Hawk
Down" humiliation in 1993, which prompted the withdrawal
of a "humanitarian mission" that had taken sides in
Somalia's civil conflict, the U.S. has taken military action against
a target in that country. This follows a serious of actions designed
to build a case for regime change there. As R.T. Naylor has enumerated
them in a CounterPunch column, these include blocking the transfer
of funds from Somalis in the U.S. to relatives back home, sending
a warship to patrol the Somali coast, and making preparations
for direct intervention -- supposedly to prevent al-Qaeda from
gaining control over the country. In October 2002, the U.S. dispatched
1,500 troops to its newly established military base at Camp Le
Monier, a former French Foreign Legion outpost in neighboring
Djibouti. This has become the U.S. base of operations on the Horn
of Africa, transferred from the Marine Corps to the Navy last
July, when Djibouti's government announced a lease agreement to
expand the camp from 88 acres to nearly 500 acres.

In January 2006 the Fifth Fleet's guided missile destroyer USS
Winston S Churchill in a symbolic show of force seized a pirate
ship off the coast. Meanwhile Washington cultivated the "transitional
government" of Somalia formed in exile and approved a fifty
million dollar contract between it and a private U.S. marine security
company to patrol the coast.

In recent days Washington has worked with an invading (mostly
Christian) Ethiopian army to topple the government headed by the
Islamic Courts Union. Last year the ICU took over most of Somalia,
bringing order and the restoration of commerce to Mogadishu, Kismayo
and other cities. While it implemented harsh Sharia law, it received
considerable support (including from Mogadishu's business community)
as an alternative to the rule of feuding warlords. It includes
some elements that express support for al-Qaeda, but also "moderate"
elements, including its chairman Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. In any case,
the U.S. has been quietly supporting the ICU's warlord opponents
for months and on December 14 U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Jendayi Fraser made a speech declaring that the ICU "is now
controlled by al-Qaeda cell individuals." (South African
journalist Michael Schmidt writes, "Fraser, now Bush's senior
advisor on Africa, had no diplomatic experience. Instead, she
once served as a politico-military planner with the Joint Chiefs
of Staff in the Department of Defence and as senior director for
African affairs at the National Security Council.") This
speech, according to John Prendergast, Africa director for the
International Crisis Group, "was the green light the Ethiopians
needed" to invade.

It is not at all clear that the U.S. and Ethiopia-backed transitional
government commands greater respect from the Somali people than
the ICU, which although driven from the cities vows guerrilla
resistance. Indeed there have been ongoing protest demonstrations
and the new regime is so insecure that it has imposed a state
of emergency and shut down Al Jazeera and other media outlets.
Newly installed President Abdullahi Yusuf himself notes that Mogadishu
"is in chaos. It's not safe." In this context a U.S.
Air Force AC-130 gunship flying from a base in the French protectorate
of Djibouti launched an airstrike last week against alleged al-Qaeda
leader Fazul Mohammed and two other top terrorists. First it announced
a hit, then retracted the story, declaring however that ten "Islamist
allies of al-Qaeda" had been killed.

But Somalis like Member of Parliament Abdelgadir Haji tell a different
tale. He claims that the strike killed over 150. The transitional
government announced that about 50 "Islamist leaders"
fleeing Mogadishu had been killed, while the Islamists' health
director told the New York Times that the groups' "donkeys,
their camels, their cows, they've all been destroyed. And many
children were killed." Oxfam reports that at least 70 nomads
were killed in the attack.

The new UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon expressed concern about
the attack and the "new dimension this kind of action could
introduce to the conflict, and the possible escalation of hostilities
that may result." The EU pronounced the U.S. action "not
helpful in the long run." The Italian foreign minister declared
that Rome opposed "unilateral initiatives that could set
off new tensions in an area already marked by high instability."
The Arab League condemned the action, declaring it had killed
"many innocent victims." Amnesty International suggested
it violated international law.

The U.S. followed up by sending a team of military personnel to
the attack site to investigate. Meanwhile the Pentagon acknowledged
that U.S. special operations forces are now in Somalia tracking
down al-Qaeda leaders, and a small team serves as advisors to
Ethiopian and Somali forces. The USS Ramage guided missile destroyer
has arrived off the Somali coast, joining the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
aircraft carrier, the USS Bunker Hill and USS Anzio guided missile
cruisers, and the USS Ashland amphibious landing ship.

This as the population of Mogadishu rises up in angry protests
against the transitional government and its plans to disarm the
people. Having conflated the ICU and al-Qaeda, and taking advantage
of the savage image of Somalis conveyed by the 2001 movie hit
Black Hawk Down, Washington may assume that further intervention
will meet with domestic support. In any case, it looks like Somalia's
been "taken down" as predicted by Gen. Clark's Pentagon
buddy.

How about Sudan? Here's where a humanitarian argument comes in
. . . rather like it did in 1992, when the first President Bush
sent in troops to help the starving Somalis but wound up generating
widespread outrage. Here the neocons build bridges to the naive
liberals prone to sport placards pleading, "Out of Iraq,
Into Darfur!" at antiwar demonstrations. If you want to take
down Sudan's government, it's helpful to vilify it as much as
possible. If you can depict a conflict between Sudanese herders
and agriculturalists as one between government-backed Arab terrorists
(the Janjaweed militia) and black African targets of genocide
(as Colin Powell did publicly in September 2004), conjuring up
images of the Holocaust, so much the better. The fact of the matter
is that the Sudanese government has signed ceasefire and power-sharing
agreements with rebel forces in January, July, and October 2002,
May 2004, January and June 2005, and May 2006. From August 2004
it has accepted an African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur,
now numbering about 7000 troops. In December 2006 it agreed to
accept the deployment of UN troops in Darfur as part of an expanded
peacekeeping force.

John Bolton had crusaded at the United Nations for that UN force.
But Khartoum has little reason to suppose Bolton is an honest
broker when it comes to its internal affairs. In October 2005,
he actually blocked a special UN envoy from briefing the UN Security
Council about the situation in Darfur, declaring that the council
already knew enough to take action.

Bolton proposed the UN force be augmented by NATO troops -- a
suggestion naturally rejected by a regime on the American hit
list. Nevertheless, after much arm-twisting by Bolton, the UNSC
unanimously passed Resolution 1679 in May 2006 calling for the
African Union force to be replaced by a UN force in Sudan, and
Bolton interprets the resolution as validating NATO involvement.
The resolution calls upon the AU and all parties involved to "agree
with" and "work with" not just the UN but "international
and regional organizations."

In a May 16, 2006 news conference Bolton made himself clear: "Regional
organization means NATO. There's not the slightest doubt in anybody's
mind what it means."

It sounds as though Cheney and his neocons are eager to get NATO's
foot in the door. (Bolton's on record, by the way, as advocating
Israel's admission into that expanding body.)

Exploitation of the Darfur situation and other conflicts could
conceivably lead to regime change in Africa's largest country.
But China, heavily invested in Sudan's oil industry and cozy with
the regime, has generally opposed outside intervention. And nasty
though Khartoum and the Janjaweed militia might be, Sudan hasn't
been high on the U.S.'s regime change list.

That leaves Iran. If Colin Powell's State Department was for a
time inclined to seek a rapprochement with Tehran, the neocons
were able to sabotage his efforts before the attack on Iraq. Dick
Cheney intervened to reject an Iranian offer of talks with the
U.S. soon after the invasion, and has been working tirelessly
to build a case for an attack, ably assisted by John Bolton. Bolton,
after all, was able to strong-arm a resolution from the UN Security
Council finding Iran "in non-compliance" with the Non-Proliferation
Treaty even though IAEA head and Nobel peace prize laureate Mohamed
ElBaradei has stated repeatedly he's found no evidence for an
Iranian nuclear weapons program. As in the case of Iraq, the plan
is to connect a posited, unproven intention of Iran to acquire
nuclear weapons with its potential to hand one over to a terrorist
group. Given that Iran does support some organizations (including
Hamas and Hizbollah) that Washington considers terrorist, and
that Iran is hostile to Israel, the neocon propaganda apparatus
(concentrated in the Iranian Directorate under Abram Shulsky in
the Pentagon and the Office of Iranian Affairs in the State Department)
has a lot to work with.

The war planners got a boost when the 9-11 Commission, having
debunked the prewar reports about Saddam's WMD and al-Qaeda ties,
reported that Tehran had facilitated the passage of al-Qaeda fighters
from Afghanistan to Iraq. They also benefited from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
victory in the August 2005 Iranian presidential elections and
early (now discredited) reports that he was among the students
who took over the U.S. embassy after the fall of the Shah in 1979
and held U.S. personnel hostage. The more persistent report is
of Iranian support for Iraqi militias; Iranian arms, we're supposed
to believe, are going to both Sunni and Shiite forces killing
American troops. But the Iraqi government -- placed in power
by the occupiers but led by Shiites friendly towards Iran -- disputes
the charges (just as it disputes allegations of Syrian complicity
in the "insurgency"). In any case, the justifications
for an attack on Iran have been clear for some time:

Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons in violation of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty. (This involves insisting, as Cheney
has repeatedly, that an oil-rich nation like Iran can't possibly
have need for a nuclear program.)

Iran is threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" and
would use nuclear weapons to do so. (Actual anti-Israel statements
by Ahmadinejad seem to be augmented by false reports and misquotations.)

Iran is complicit in the killing Americans in Iraq.

Iran is harboring al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and helping
Palestinian terrorists and Hizbollah.

Iran has been complicit in international acts of terrorism.

The administration has received support from the House of Representatives,
which in April 2006 passed the "Iran Freedom Support Act"which
"found"among other things that "The United States
and the international community face no greater threat to their
security than the prospect of rogue regimes who support international
terrorism obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and particularly
nuclear weapons. "It further "found" that "Iran
is the leading state sponsor of international terrorism and is
close to achieving nuclear weapons."

Soon we may be told that Iran by ignoring a Security Council resolution
demanding it suspend its nuclear enrichment program leaves the
U.S., as the world's leader, no option but to use force. Both
Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley have refused to say whether
or not they believe an attack would require congressional approval.
Prospects for a strike would improve if there is a terrorist attack
in the very near future on U.S. soil. As former CIA officer Philip
Giraldi reported in the American Conservative in August 2005,
Cheney has asked STRATCOM to draw up a plan for a large-scale
air assault on Iran, employing both conventional and tactical
nuclear weapons, to be immediately implemented in the wake of
a terrorist attack on the U.S. -- whether or not it had any connection
to Iran! He must suppose such an attack would help change the
political atmosphere and reduce dissent.

Alternatively, Israel may conclude that this most pro-Israeli
of all U.S. administrations lacks the will to undertake the attack
it has been urging on the U.S. with mounting insistence over the
past several years. In that case the U.S. will have a crucial
supporting role. "We" will still be involved.

While ratcheting up tension around Iran's nuclear program, the
administration has made apparent preparations for an attack, sending
Patriot missile batteries and two aircraft carriers to the Gulf
region. The president has just appointed a naval officer, Adm.
William J. Fallon, to replace Army Gen. John Abizaid as head of
the United States Central Command (CENTCOM). Many have observed
that it makes little sense to place an admiral in charge of land
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but would be reasonable to give
one command responsibility for an air war.

Meanwhile U.S. forces in Iraq have now twice detained Iranian
diplomatic personnel in Iraq, over the objections of Iraqi officials,
accusing them of assisting anti-US militias. In the most recent
episode, they invaded a building (viewed by the Iraqi government
as a consulate) in Irbil, and apprehended five Iranians who claim
to be diplomats. Irbil is in Iraqi Kurdistan, where local officials
are more friendly to U.S. troops than in any other part of the
country. But the action -- an apparent violation of the1963 Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations -- sparked outrage among Kurds,
including one who serves as Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari.
"We don't want Iraq to be a battleground for settling scores
with other countries, "he told CNN. Prime Minister Jalal
Talabani, also a Kurd, had expressed dismay at the detention of
Iranians (in Iraq at his invitation) last month. It may be that
Washington seeks to provoke Iran by such behavior opposed by the
Iraqi client regime itself, which cherishes warm relations with
Tehran.

Iran was supposed to have been taken down by now. But five years
have passed. Perhaps Gen. Clark these days, in his occasional
forays to the Pentagon, is asking his active-duty pals: "Are
we still going to invade Iran?"

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History,
and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion, at Tufts University
and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached
at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu.